International Land Border Crossings

2.7.International Land Border Crossings

2.7.1.Organizational and Technical Capabilities

Adoption and deployment of Connected Vehicle technology at international border crossings (IBC) will rely on collaboration and coordination between agencies in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. To meet the needs of stakeholders at IBCs, fully-coordinated inter-jurisdictional systems are required. While technology may not be the barrier, institutional issues certainly may. In addition, agencies within a country (e.g., federal and state agencies) will have to coordinate and collaborate to share data on agreeable terms and conditions. Working groups such as the US-Canada Transportation Border Working Group (TBWG) and the US-Mexico Joint Working Committees (JWC) will have to play a pivotal role to ensure coordination at all levels of government, as well as to frame policies and funding mechanisms to plan and deploy Connected Vehicle technology at IBCs.

Gap : Unbalanced Cross-Border Capabilities

When it comes to implementing technology systems at the borders, Canada and the United States are ahead of Mexico. US and Canadian agencies have experience in planning, developing, and maintaining ITS at IBCs; specifically wait time measurement systems. It may be assumed that Mexico will require significant assistance in identifying funding, as well as developing technical capabilities to operate and maintain the necessary systems at IBCs.

Recommendation: Explore mechanisms for assessing cross-border capabilities and for facilitating development of IBC systems.

2.7.2.Border Information Flow Architecture

In 2005, the FHWA in cooperation with Transport Canada developed the Border Information Flow Architecture (BIFA) to assist agencies in planning deployment of ITS applications at IBCs. BIFA identifies the needs of stakeholders on both sides of the US-Canada border regarding wait time measurement, approach management etc. However, the architecture has not kept up to date with both countries’ National ITS architectures.

An architecture similar to BIFA does not exist for the US and Mexico. There are however plans to develop one. There are also plans to revise/update Mexico’s National ITS architecture, which will consider stakeholder needs at IBCs.

Recommendation: Add a Vehicle Short Range Traveler Information equipment package to BIFA to allow in-vehicle signage (e.g., to display roadway signs specific to border crossings on on-board equipment using DSRC).

2.7.3.Physical and Communication Security

Sharing data between agencies in different countries requires the agencies to agree on data exchange protocols, standards, and data transmission security. While countries may adopt existing Center to Center (C2C) standards and protocols as provided in BIFA and/or their respective ITS architectures, it is not clear what kind of data transmission security will be agreeable to these agencies. Because the proposed application is not safety related, it is anticipated that the security requirements for transmission of wait times and related data may not be stringent. Therefore, some level of data encryption and server firewalls should be expected.

The IBC applications are not related to a vehicle’s or occupant’s safety; hackers and intruders posting false wait time messages may not be a direct safety risk. However, such incidents are undesirable since they might disrupt the flow of traffic through IBCs. In the absence of proper security apparatus, hackers may use RSEs and/or wireless communication links to gain access to other RSEs that are part of safety applications.

Physical security of RSEs at border crossings, especially in Mexico is a concern, if they are to be located at locations where there are no commercial activities. Batteries, solar panels, and communication equipment inside the cabinets are targets for thefts.

Given the geographic scope requirements to enable a seamless data exchange, and the mobility of vehicles across the international border, it is anticipated that security of data communication between bi-national agencies should be designed and implemented as a single multi-national North American system. As a result, individual states and provinces will not be required to setup independent security systems/models and responsibility for design and implementation of the security standards will be incumbent upon federal agencies. The role of state and local agencies in system security can be primarily centered on providing connectivity from roadside devices to the network, and security of data collected locally.

Recommendation: Establish North American data exchange policies and security framework.

2.7.4.Bi-National Data Exchange Protocols and Standards

A recent study performed by Texas A&M Transportation Institute with funding from United States Department of Transportation showed that there are no bi-national real-time data exchange standards/protocols between Mexico, Canada, and the US systems. Connected Vehicle technology deployments at border-crossings will require systems in US communicating to their counterparts in Mexico and Canada.

The majority of large IBCs on both the US-Canada and US-Mexico borders have sophisticated communication technology, including fiber optics, that connect toll systems, dynamic message signs, etc. to traffic management centers. These centers should be one of the key components of deploying the proposed connected vehicle applications at IBCs. Data exchange protocols (e.g., frequency of data transmission, refresh rates, exceptions handling) between TMCs in each country will have to be agreed upon. Fortunately, both Canada and Mexico use or are committed to use the same C2C and Center to Field (C2F) standards as adopted by US.

Recommendation: To facilitate real-time data sharing between two countries, establish C2C standards with support for translation of attributes into different languages.